The document discusses validating the Types of Goal Scale through confirmatory factor analysis on a sample of 592 Indian athletes. Results found the scale had adequate reliability and validity. Specifically: 1. A two-factor model with time-bound goals and process goals provided the best fit, with alpha coefficients of 0.48 and 0.57 respectively. 2. Differential analysis found no significant differences between male and female athletes in their goal-setting. 3. Norms were established using mean scores to interpret athlete scores as "almost every time", "occasionally", or "never". The scale demonstrates reliability and validity for measuring goal-setting among Indian athletes.

1. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS ON THE TYPES OF
GOAL SCALE FOR SPORTS PERSONS
Ms. Meenakshi, Assistant Professor, IGIPESS, Delhi University
Dr. Lalit Sharma, Associate Professor, IGIPESS, Delhi University
Abstract
Goal setting, particularly different types of goal is a topic that has been of interest
among sports psychologists, athletes and coaches. The types of goal scale (Meenakshi
and Sharma, 2013) was developed for measuring the nature and frequency of the
goals. The psychometric properties of the types of goal scale, however have not been
tested on a sample of Indian athletes, which is an important component if researchers
and applied sport psychologists have to use the scale for assessment purpose. A total
of 592 athletes were considered for the analysis. Results shown that two-factor model
of types of goal with few modifications provides an adequate fit to the data with the
internal consistency of 0.48 and 0.57 respectively for the time bound goals and
process goals subscale. The results provided the evidence for reliability and validity
of the types of goal scale for targeted population.
Key words: Measurement, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Performance
INTRODUCTION
Researchers in sports psychology have consistently shown that goal setting is an effective
technique to enhance performance of the athletes. In fact, Singer, R, Hausenblas, H, & Janelle,
C, 2001, cited in Peak Sporting Excellence Performance in their recent meta-analysis showed
that goal-setting led to performance enhancement in 78% of sport and exercise research studies,
with moderate to strong effects.
According to McClements (1982, cited by Frankl, 2012) there are two types of goals, subjective
goals and objective goals. Subjective goals are not specific; they are typically general goals with
no real means to quantify success and therefore are not used in sport psychology quantitative
interventions. Objective goals are based on more quantifiable measures. Objective goals can also

2. be divided into three different categories: outcome goals, performance goals, and process goals
(Burton, Naylor, & Holliday, 2001; Hardy et al., 1996 cited by Weinberg, & Gould 2011)).
Outcome goals typically focus on achieving a certain result in a competition. Winning the
championship, to play in the starting lineup, or to beat a specific opponent are same of the
outcome goals.
Performance goals focus on improvement within an individual, such as setting a personal best
time for a race, to meet the qualifying time for a league or national meet at the next competition.
Instead of emphasizing the outcome, individuals emphasize the process by which a given
outcome is achieved. Performance goals often make the most effective type of goals because it
involves learning at the risk of making mistakes, it improves problem-solving, and it encourages
the athlete to work harder (money instructor).
Process goals focus on the skills, actions and techniques that are used to achieve a performance,
such as maintaining perfect form for a diving competition. A sprinter who has a tendency to
become overly concerned with the position of his/her competitors during the final 20m of races
might set a process goal of focusing on a point beyond the finish line to ensure focus is retained
until the line has been crossed.
These goals can vary in the time frame. Time goals have three different levels, each serving as a
means to improve performance in the general as well as smaller timeframes. These three levels
are known as short-term goals, mid-range goals, and long-term goals.
As above literature has shown that there are various types of goal in the goal setting to improve
performance. The scale was developed (Meenakshi & Sharma, 2013) which could measure types
of goal set by athletes to improve their performance. However, the psychometric properties of
the scale have not been tested on a sample of Indian athletes, which is very important if the
researchers want to use the scale with this population. Therefore the purpose of the study was to
validate the types of goal scale using confirmatory factor analysis.
METHODOLOGY
The scale was validated in three different phases.
Participants

3. A total of five-hundred and ninety-two sportspersons representing twenty four colleges, three
sports clubs and three institutes/colleges of physical education from Delhi/ NCR were part of the
study. The sample consisted of 312 males, 280 females, who voluntarily took part. The age of the
subjects were ranged from 17 years and above. The sportspersons’ participation level was
considered from intercollegiate level to international level. The subjects for the study who were
actively engaged in competitive sports participation in various individual and team sports were
the target population for the present study.
Administration of the Test
Subjects were informed regarding the purpose of the study and details of the subjects were
obtained on age, gender, specialized sport, types of sport and highest sport participation. Their
willingness to complete the scale was ascertained by requesting them to put their signature after
responding to the items in the scale. The subjects were informed that there is no time limit in
responding to the scale, however, completing the task doesn’t take more than 15 minutes. They
were further instructed not to brood upon any statement rather place immediately the response
that comes instantly after reading a statement. The subjects did not feel any difficulty in
responding to the scale, since the statements contained very simple terms which were invariably
used in the English language. The research scholar considered only those scales which were
completed in all respect.
Scoring
The types of goal scale were rated on 7-point Likert scale from very true of me (7) to very untrue
of me (1).
Statistical Analysis
For the present study different statistics were employed at different phases of validation.
Phase I
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to support the factor
model as defined by exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The value of x2
/df ratio lower than 2.0
suggest a good fit, whereas Fulop, (2007) and few other researchers recommended x2
/df ratio
values < 3.0 for good fit. The NNFI and CFI values above 0.90 considered for an acceptable fit

4. of the model. The GFI indices range from 0 to 1, with values close to 1 representing a perfect fit,
and the values close to 0 represent a poor fit. The values of SRMR and RMSEA close to or lower
than 0.08 and 0.09 respectively demonstrate an acceptable fit. The factor loadings of the items to
the appropriate factors should exceed the cutoff criterion of 0.30.
Reliability: Alpha coefficients to test the internal consistency were employed again after CFA.
Gliem & Gliem, (2003) suggested that, for an acceptable internal consistency, the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient should not be less than 0.50 and the value of alpha is partially dependent upon
the number of items in the scale.
Phase II Differential reliability
To test the differences between the genders attitude towards types of goal (Sohrabi & Shajie,
2012) independent t - test was utilized to measure the scale structure reliability.
Phase III Norms
Descriptive Analysis using mean and standard deviation was conducted to construct the norm.
Keeping in mind the range of scores the norms were developed on a 3 point scale for types of
goal scale, for which total score of all items on types of goal scale were utilized (Verma &
Ghufran, 2012).
RESULTS
The date was analysed by computing various statistics. The findings of the study have been
shown in the following tables.
Phase I
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
To determine the non-normality of the data, the distributional properties of the statements of the
different subscales of types of goal were examined by using univariate skewness and univariate
kurtosis. The results described that the types of goal statements having univariate skewness were
ranged from -0.35 to 1.36 (M= 0.82) and univariate kurtosis from 0.35 to 1.74 (M= 1.02)

5. indicated that they are normally distributed, because they are not more than the cutoff value of 3
for skewness and 7 for kurtosis, which are set as the upper value of normality.
Table 1 Fit Indices of the Two Measurement Models of the Types of Goal Subscale
Model x2 df x2/df CFI GFI NNFI SRMR RMSEA
Model 1: two factor 35.02 8 4.38 0.87 0.96 0.75 0.07 0.11
Model 2: two factor
(revised )
7.02 3 2.34 0.98 0.99 0.92 0.03 .07
Model 3: one factor 35.77* 9 3.97 0.87 0.96 0.78 0.07 0.10
Note. x2
= chi-square, df =Degree of Freedom, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, GFI= Goodness of Fitness Index,
NNFI= Non-Normed Fit Index, SRMR=Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, RMSEA = Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation.
As revealed from the Table 1, the two factor measurement model of types of goal subscale
demonstrated that the overall model not fit well according to fit indices. The x2
(df=8, N= 280)
value is 35.02 (p< .05), the x2
/df ratio is 4.38 the CFI 0.87, the GFI 0.96, the NNFI 0.75, the
SRMR 0.07, the RMSEA 0.11. The x2
value is not the best fit index may be due to sample size
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996, cited in Zervas, Stavrou, & Psychountaki, 2007). The x2
/df ratio is
high which represents an unacceptable fit to the data. The NNFI and CFI values have not reached
the criteria of 0.90. The GFI value is close to 1 suggested a good fit. The SRMR value has
reached the criteria of 0.08 whereas the RMSEA has not met the criteria (0.09). The factor
loadings of types of goal’ scale ranged from 0.30 to 0.76 (mean factor loadings = 0.57).
Covariance matrix was not positive definite. Modification indices suggested to remove statement
no 16.Therefore, statement as suggested was removed and two-factor measurement model was
again tested.
In model 2, revised two-factor structure found to be fit well. The fit indices shown that the x2
(df=3, N=280) value of model fit is 7.02, the null hypothesis of a good fit is not accepted (p
>0.05). The x2
/df value is 2.34. The CFI value is 0.98 suggest a good fit, the GFI value is 0.99
suggest a perfect fit, the NNFI value is 0.92 also suggest a good fit, the SRMR and the RMSEA
values are 0.03 and 0.07 respectively suggest a very good fit. The factor loadings in the revised
two-factor model range from 0.35 to 0.65. Modification indices indicated that the statement 15

6. is a good indicator of time bound goals subscale as the factor loading of statement 15 is greater
(0.40) on time bound goals subscale than (0.35) process goals subscale as shown in Figure 1.
In model 3, all statements were tested on a single factor and the fit indices of the one-factor
model are as: x2
= 35.77 ((p< 0.05); x2
/df = 3.97; CFI = 0.87; GFI = 0.96; NNFI = 0.78; SRMR =
0.07; RMSEA =0.103. The single-factor measurement model of the types of goal subscale
revealed a poor fit based on the fit indices. The x2
/df value is higher than the cutoff criteria of 3.
The CFI and NNFI values have not reached the desirable values of 0.90. Additionally, the
RMSEA value is high. The factor loadings for a single factor range from 0.22 to 0.63 (mean
factor loadings = 0.44).
The fit indices and significant factor loadings of the types of goal subscale in the measurement
models have shown that the second model is better than the other two models. The model
represented in Figure 1 below further indicates that the correlation between the two factors is
fairly correlated, therefore, the total of these two factors is a measure for types of goal subscale.
Figure 1: Factor loadings of the 6 statements of Types of Goal Subscale
Alpha Coefficent and Index of Reliability

7. To test the internal consistency reliability of the subscales, Alpha coefficient was computed after
CFA. To test the statistical validity that computes the index of reliability, was performaed for the
instrument validation. The literature confirms that if the value is more than 0.50 the test is said
to be valid.The results pertaining to Alpha Coefficient and index of reliability are presented in
Table 2 .
Table 2 Internal Consistency and Index of Reliability of Types of Goal Scales/Subscales
Scale/Subscales No of Statements α Index of Reliability
Types of Goal 5 0.58 0.76
Time goals 3 0.48 0.69
Process goals 2 0.57 0.74
Table 2 reveals the internal consistency reliability is 0.48 for the three-item time goals and for
process goals is 0.57 resulting that all coefficient are acceptable for good internal consistency
reliability in each selected subscales as well as in the total types of goal scale. The results also
reveal that in this instrument the index of reliability is 0.69 and 0.74 for subscales of the types of
goal respectively, and 0.76 for total scale which indicates that experimentally also the test is
valid to use as an instrument on the population.
Phase II - Differential Reliability
To determine subscales’ differential reliability regarding the gender, the mean scores were
compared. The related values pertaining to independent t-test for independent groups are
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 Comparison of Subscales of the Goal Setting Scale between Genders
to Determine Differential Reliability
Subscales Gender Mean SD t-test P-value
Type of Goals Male 31.11 5.91
0.59 .554
Female 31.35 5.26

8. Table 3 reveals the differential reliability regarding gender in the scale of types of goal. T-ratio
values of independent groups on types of goal is 0.59 which is not significant at 0.05 level with
df = 590, The t-test indicates that genders do not influence the types of goal.
Phase III - Development of Norms
Development of the scale is incomplete unless norms are developed to interpret the score.
Therefore, scholar has developed the norms for the instrument to interpret their score in a
meaningful manner so that the score obtained by a player could be interpreted. Descriptive
statistics using mean and standard deviation on five hundred and ninety two subjects were
computed to develop norms. The norms were developed on three grades good, average and
below average for the types of goal. The normative values along with the qualitative
interpretation of types of goal scale is presented in Table 4.
Table 4 Norms on Types of Goal
GRADES TYPES OF GOAL VALUES
Almost every time > 31
Occasionally/Sometimes 21 to 30
Never use < 20
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The initial 6 items of the types of goal scale (Meenakshi & Sharma, 2013) developed by using an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the 312 subjects resulted in two-factor solution was used in
the study. For further development and validation of the types of goal scale confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was performed on another samples consisting of 280 subjects. The confirmatory
factor analysis was performed to establish the factorial validity of the subscales of types of goal.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated that two-factor model of types of goal subscale
provides an adequate fit to the data. First factor presents that sportspersons set short-term goals -
weekly and seasonal goals as well as long term goals to increase performance at higher level as
supported by the findings of Jeff, 2000, Kyllo & Landers, 1995, Locke & Latham, 1995. The
second factor presents that sportspersons set process goals (combination of process, performance

9. & outcome goals) to achieve greatest improvement in the performance supported by the findings
of the Filby, Maynard, & Grayd, 1999.
Another additional measurement model provided a further examination of the factorial validity
of the scale to measure types of goal. According to the model, all statements loaded on one
factor, suggesting the uni-dimensionality of types of goal. However, the results of the
measurement model, indicating that all statements do not represent the same construct.
On the other hand, the relatively high correlation between time bound goals and process goals
suggested composite types of goal score (sum of time bound goals and process goals). Summing
up the scores of all statements on each factor produces a total types of goal score, ranging from 5
(very low types of goal) to 35 (very high types of goal). A low score could be incorporated as a
sportsperson is not receiving a favourable attitude towards using the time bound goals and
process effectively and high score indicating a favourable attitude towards using a time bound
goal and process goal effectively while setting their goals.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitation of the study the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that two-factor model of types of goal with few
modifications provides an adequate fit to the data with the internal consistency of 0.48 and
0.57 respectively for the time bound goals and process goals subscale.
Research Implications
The development of the scale will be of immense importance to the sports persons as it can serve
as an essential tool for measuring goal setting pattern of an athlete sets for his/her performance.
As the literature suggests that the combination of goals are better than setting any single type of
goal. Therefore the scale would help us to choose an appropriate goal setting intervention for an
athlete. The scale may be extremely useful to set appropriate goals depending upon the level of
the sports person performance by the coaches or trainers. Furthermore the types of goal scale
may help the sports persons not only to evaluate their own self, but also equips themselves to
understand the importance of goal setting required for excellence. The scale constructed may be

10. based on Indian population, especially the sports person and hence will be an important
psychological instrument in Indian context.
The scale may be used to assess the types of goal pattern among male and female athletes.
The scale may be used for the assessment of an athlete for training purpose. However, for
research purposes it is not recommended.
Reference
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd
edition). London: Sage.
Filby, W. C., Maynard , I. W., & Grayd, J. K. (1999). The Effect of Multiple-Goal Strategies on
Performance Outcomes in Training and Competition. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 11(2), 230-246.
Frankl, D. (2012). Retrieved December 21, 2011, from
http://www.kidsfirstsoccer.com/setgoalsx.htm
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha
Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference
in Adult (pp. 82-88). Columbus: Continuing, and Community Education.
Jeff, R. (2000, March ). The Effects of a Goal Setting Program on the Self-Confidence of
Wrestlers. Research quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 71, a-86.
Kyllo, L. B., & Landers, D. M. (1995, June). Goal Setting in Sport and Exercise: A Research
Synthesis to Resolve the Controversy. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17(2),
117 – 137.
Locke, A., & Latham , G. P. (1995). The Application of Goal Setting to Sports. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 7(3).
Meenakshi & Sharma Lalit (2013),
Money Instructor. moneyinstructor.com. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2012, from
http://www.moneyinstructor.com/doc/setgoals.asp
Peak Sporting Excellence Performance. Peak Sporting Excellence Performance.com. (n.d.).
Retrieved May 20, 2008, from pponline.co.uk: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/goal-
setting.html

11. Sohrabi, M., & Shajie, R. (2012, September ). Determining Validity and Reliability of Athletic
Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS-Plus) among Iranian Sample. Archives Des Sciences,
65 (9), 407-418.
Verma , J. P., & Ghufran, M. (2012). Statistics for Psychology A comprehensive Text. MC Graw
Hill.
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2011). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology (5th
Ed.)
Human Kinetics, USA. 344
Zervas , Y., Stavrou , N. A., & Psychountaki , M. (2007). Development and Validation of the
Self-Talk Questionnaire (S-TQ) for Sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19 (2),
142-159.